but it shouldn't be a free ride.

But it should be a free ride for the government? Taxes have been paid once on whatever it is. So then it's okay for the government to double dip into your pocket? Because when it's all said and done, that's whose pocket their hitting. Yours not your kids or anyone elses.

If not, the land is sold and Johnny Reb VII pockets $6.5 million of it

wrong answer Brad. He pockets whatever is left after taxes! He has paid the 3.5 mil in inheritance tax. NOW he'll have to pay income tax on the 6.5 mil left over. And I believe that figure would put him in the 30% bracket?

DrMiler: We ALREADY PAY INCOME TAXES.  You understand this right? You earn $100 from your job and some percentage of it between 10% and 35% is going to go to the federal goverment.

So why should income that is just handed to you be treated differently.

Taxation occurs when money changes hands. When I pay for a candy bar, I pay a sales tax. The money I used to pay for the candy bar was already taxed when I earned it. The store that receives the money for the candy bar is also taxed on that money.

And no, I am not wrong. I think I know my analogy better than you do, thanks.  In my ideal system, Johnny Reb pays $3.5 million of the $10 million as income taxes and keeps the rest.

The reason you are not understanding what I'm talking about is that you have apparently decided that I am for a death tax in which a person's assets are taxed BEFORE it is transferred to inheritors. No where have I said or implied that.

If you bust you ass and make 10 million ITS already been taxed at somewhere close to 50% with state taxes included, why should the gov, get some money because you simply uped and died?

Why should the government get some money because you simply up and bought something, or up and got a job? How come, when I buy something, I pay sales tax and the seller pays income tax on the same money? Wouldn't you think that if there was one thing that the government wanted to encourage by making it tax-free, it would be earning money by working for it?

And why should your children get some money because you simply up and died?

Taxes, money, and all that crap is just never going to make sense. If you're in a position where you don't have to seriously worry about it because you already have enough for food and shelter and whatnot, praise the lord and move on.

So why should income that is just handed to you be treated differently.

Because TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID on the money!

Taxation occurs when money changes hands. When I pay for a candy bar, I pay a sales tax. The money I used to pay for the candy bar was already taxed when I earned it. The store that receives the money for the candy bar is also taxed on that money.

BTW this is waaaay different. You are paying tax on a product "bought".

And no, I am not wrong. I think I know my analogy better than you do, thanks. In my ideal system, Johnny Reb pays $3.5 million of the $10 million as income taxes and keeps the rest.

And "yes" you are wrong. He STILL has to pay income tax on the 6.5. He pays 3.5 inheritence tax and then income tax on the rest.

The reason you are not understanding what I'm talking about is that you have apparently decided that I am for a death tax in which a person's assets are taxed BEFORE it is transferred to inheritors. No where have I said or implied that

Just what do you think an inheritence tax is? Death tax or inheritence tax, 6 of one half a dozen of another. It's basically the same thing. Also judging from the replies I would venture to say that I'm not the only one thinking this way.

Taxes have been paid once on whatever it is.

That's my opinion too.  Whoever earned that money originally was taxed on it as and when they earned it, so why should it get taxed again?  Even if the money wasn't earned but was won (in a lottery for example), that money would already have been taxed once.

 

There is a flaw to your logic Draginol...

You are trying to make the case that Unearned income is the same, no matter where it comes from. The problem with your argument is, there is a difference between taxpayer revenue and private money.

Earned and unearned. My problem with welfare is that it provides unearned income to people. And so to me, inheritence isn't much better than welfare.

Unless they are under investigation for a crime, It isn't the government's business to decide what portion of any private citizen's money was "earned" or "unearned". Welfare, on the other hand, is from taxpayer revenues, therefore, it is completely different than private holdings.

We have agreed though, that an inheretance is income, and could be taxed, just not at an artificially confiscatory rate. If you get right down to it though, I'm against all forms of income tax... however, they are now consitutional, and the government has to get operating revenues somewhere.

Again I have 2 problems.  I bust my ass, make $10m, and decide to give it to the United way.  Should they be taxed?  They did not earn it.  Of course the answer is no.

But I bust my ass to PROVIDE for my children, and I pay taxes and die, the taxes have already been paid on that $10 million!  What gives you the right to decide if I give my money to kids or the United way?  For now you are deciding that you know better how my hard earned money is to be spent (literally).  That is too socialistic for me.

Ok, point 2 (and I find your Johnny Reb to be highly ironic, and somewhat prejudice).  I bust my ass, and make a going concern of a farm VALUED at $10m.  But the value is only in the product of my sweat.  My son comes into the Business.  Again, some years are good, some are bad.  I die during a bad one, and no one will give him jack shit.  SO he looses it all because the price of rice is now down to a dollar a buschel.  My hard work has been for nothing and he cannot make a go of it becuase the carpet baggers have bought the land for a freeway.

Tough you say.  And so it goes.  You see, many farmers are property rich, and cash poor.  And no bank is going to loan them money on something that is iffy at best and speculative in the most part.  So they lose the farm.  And we lose another farm to a huge conglomerate.  That cares not for the workers these people have employed, or the investment they have made.

And for what?  because you want a lake front house in Michigan?  I must say of all your articles, this is the lamest and most self centered.  For in the end, it will be you that is bitten as well as paris Hilton (some would say deservedly so) and Uncle ned and his farm.

Sorry, I dont agree.  you just threw the baby out with the bathwater.

If the inheritance is in the form of cash then I would agree with the reasoning that it is income and should be taxed as such. But if it's land, it really isn't income unless it's sold and therefore should only be taxed at the normal property tax rate for that land as usual.

You're taxed on lottery winnings btw.  For the inheritor, an inheritence is pretty similar.

Again I have 2 problems.  I bust my ass, make $10m, and decide to give it to the United way.  Should they be taxed?  They did not earn it.  Of course the answer is no.

The United Way is a Non-Profit Corporation.

You bust your ass, make $10 million and give it to your buddy Bill, then Bill is going to be taxed on that $10 million.

Don't you remember the Ophrah and the free car thing? The people who got those cars had to then pay taxes on it?

Again I have 2 problems.  I bust my ass, make $10m, and decide to give it to the United way.  Should they be taxed?  They did not earn it.  Of course the answer is no.

The United Way is a Non-Profit Corporation.

You bust your ass, make $10 million and give it to your buddy Bill, then Bill is going to be taxed on that $10 million.

Don't you remember the Ophrah and the free car thing? The people who got those cars had to then pay taxes on it?

And for what?  because you want a lake front house in Michigan?  I must say of all your articles, this is the lamest and most self centered.  For in the end, it will be you that is bitten as well as paris Hilton (some would say deservedly so) and Uncle ned and his farm.

You know, Dr. Guy, it maybe time for you to go bye bye.  As I have said several times, I used that example to illustrate a point.  And yes, I know that inheritence taxes will get my children too. Duh.

Brad why threaten Dr. Guy with banning because he doesn't agree with you? That is the "Way of Brad". Surround himself with a bunch of "Yes Men", and isolate or purge everyone else. The sooner you all realise that Brad is probably one of the most self centered, egotistical and patronizing brats on the internet the better. He's the Derek Smart of the skinning world.

I inherited nearly 3 million (cash and properties including a beachfront condo worth 600k which you seem to think i'm not entitled to) from my father when he passed away. I wasn't poor when I inherited, but I am surely rich after (by anyones definition of rich). But my dad busted his ass to make sure his son was set up for life and paid millions in taxes over his lifetime. It makes absolutely no sense at all that I would have to pay more taxes, that is nothing but double dipping and it is wrong. In fact, I think I should be entitled to all of the money my father paid into Social Security, it isn't the governments money it was my dads and now it should be mine.

What this really is about is how Brad can't have his way and in a normal hypocritical fashion, he shifts from radical right-winger, to radical socialist because for the current moment, that would benefit Brad the most. Can anyone imagine going through life with a complete lack of principles as one such as he?